Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[HSienzant]

This is the exact passage from the Barnum diary dated 11/29/1963, shown in David Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE:

In his November 29, 1963 account, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote that as the men were having sandwhiches and coffee sometime after midnight, Admiral Burkley came in and talked to them, and said three shots had been fired, that the President had been hit by the first and third, and he described the trajectories of the two that struck:

"The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out...."


The second part where it says "this shot not coming out...." is what confuses me. It sounds kind of like a reference to the first theory on the shallow back wound, that the bullet did not make an exit wound but rather barely penetrated the back and then naturally squeezed out of it's own entry hole. But it appears to be referencing one shot which struck "above and to the rear of the right ear". A reference to the mythical "bullet lodged behind the ear" referenced in that FBI memo? Who knows.

So you admit Barnum got stuff wrong, butchering the findings of the autopsy.

What confuses me is why you then turn around and argue then for the veracity of his claims.

3:12AM is "sometime after midnight".

Isn't it?

How long was Burkley and Barnum at Bethesda? You never did answer. When did this happen? I've asked you this a number of times and you never did answer, ignoring the question each time. I've pointed out you've ignored it a number of times as well, and drew a conclusion from your failure to respond.

Now, if Burkley imparted that info to Barnum at 3:12AM on Saturday morning, that was after the autopsy concluded, was it not? And possibly after Humes phone call to Perry learning of the throat bullet wound?

But the Barnum Diary is definitely describing a wound in his "lower neck".

And there was a wound in the lower neck found in the autopsy. And a wound in the head.

You are presuming Burkley knew all the facts and all the conclusions of the autopsy doctors and relayed them accurately to Barnum, and Barnum heard and understood accurately all the facts that Burkley stated, and recorded them accurately. All while admitting Barnum's account is wrong in places. Make up your mind. Can't be both.

We have been over why a "right after the autopsy while the morticians were treating the body" throat wound discovery doesn't work.

Remind me why it doesn't work.

Dr. Humes has even said that he and his children went to a church function before he finally got around to calling Dr. Perry much later in the morning of 11/23/1963. He estimated to was 10-11 AM to the HSCA and 7-9 AM to the ARRB.

So you're still stuck trying to wedge 15 and 33-year after the round recollections into square holes and try to get them to conform to contemporaneous notes. Uh, no. We've covered recollections extensively in the past, and I even quoted the ARRB's own caution against what you're doing:

The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves. For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single statements as "proof" for one theory or another.

You are taking Humes 15- and 33-year after the fact recollections as gospel. And Barnum's hearsay account of what Burkley said as gospel as well.

Sorry, no.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

RoboTimbo, did you read that correctly?

LOL

Trace amounts of human skin were identified on CE567. Human skin is one of the materials least likely to be found in bullets that have traveled through-an-through a wound. Human skin on CE567 is, however, perfectly compatible with a tangential shot in which a bullet, or a fragment of a bullet, glides along the side-surface of the scalp/skull bone/brain. This leaves more opportunity for contact with those tissues.

As long as you're ok with having your ass handed to you. I'd be mad at your one CT website that feeds you crap and then doesn't tell you how to extricate yourself if I were you.

 

[HSienzant]

"Magic" bullet number two, of course.

MJ must have several doctorial thesis pending peer review, GSW to the body, Time dilation, English, finite analysis, Physics, and of course debating.

I'm up to three or four by now from his arguments. By my recollection, he's claimed this bullet did the damage to the EOP, and claimed separate shots for the back wound and throat wound, rather than one bullet causing both.

Now it's only a shot that grazed JFK's head. Trying to nail down a conspiracy theorist on what they think is like trying to nail Jello to the wall.

Hank

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I would be happy to go over any post you choose and explain it to you, if you wish.

I've tried that. You can explain a non-conspiracy point to a CT until you're blue in the face.

Unfortunately, you can't understand said non-conspiracy point for the CT unless they want to understand it.

Or you certainly can't get the CT to admit he understands it but has no rebuttal.

So they resort to either ignoring the point entirely or weak dismissals of any and all points they disagree with claims like the above of incoherence.

Hank

Over to you, MicahJava. Do you genuinely not understand the posts, or is it as HSienzant says, that this is just a cheap debating tactic allowing you to wriggle out of having to answer any of them?

Ahem.
Bumped in case you didn't notice it, MicahJava.

MicahJava, I am going to have to assume, with disappointment if not surprise, that your continued silence here is an admission that you did, in fact, fully understand the posts, and that your blithe dismissal of them as 'incoherent' was indeed a cheap ploy to avoid actually addressing them.

You can change all this in a jiffy, if you wish, by simply answering my question.

Your continued silence, on the other hand, will stand as an admission of your guilt.

 

[MicahJava]

MicahJava, I am going to have to assume, with disappointment if not surprise, that your continued silence here is an admission that you did, in fact, fully understand the posts, and that your blithe dismissal of them as 'incoherent' was indeed a cheap ploy to avoid actually addressing them.

You can change all this in a jiffy, if you wish, by simply answering my question.

Your continued silence, on the other hand, will stand as an admission of your guilt.

Hank intentionally misses the point to artificially extend the discussion.

George Barnum's handwritten account should be considered incredible evidence for the early throat wound discovery by the autopsy pathologists.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hank intentionally misses the point to artificially extend the discussion.

George Barnum's handwritten account should be considered incredible evidence for the early throat wound discovery by the autopsy pathologists.

You don't have to run away your entire life, MicahJava. Answer the rebuttals pointing out the fatal flaws in the arguments your CT website feed you.

 

[bknight]

Hank MJ intentionally misses the point to artificially extend the discussion.

George Barnum's handwritten account should be considered incredible evidence for the early throat wound discovery by the autopsy pathologists.

FTFY, any evidence that supports you weak invalid conspiracy beliefs is "incredible" while you continue to hand wave any refutation or ignore facts that disprove any conspiracy.
You are too easily lead astray by disproven comments or ideas.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank intentionally misses the point to artificially extend the discussion.

Nice. Blame me for what you're clearly doing.

George Barnum's handwritten account should be considered incredible evidence for the early throat wound discovery by the autopsy pathologists. [emphasis added]

Did you really write "incredible"? Thank you for that admission.

INCREDIBLE means "not credible".
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/unbelievable
1. so extraordinary as to seem impossible
2. not credible; hard to believe; unbelievable

More evidence English is not your native tongue. Or an admission by you Barnum's account seems impossible. Take your pick. Those are your options.

Below is the list of (non-inclusive) posts still requiring rebuttal by you. I left some off but can add them back if you ever respond to the below.

We'll wait.

Your arguments about Barnum were addressed back when it was warm... in July of this year.

Another fringe reset?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11933225&postcount=1010

Brought up again in November:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12062810&postcount=2558

and rebutted again and again since then:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12066895&postcount=2647

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12066946&postcount=2650

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12067903&postcount=2688

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12068145&postcount=2698

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12073492&postcount=2797

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074224&postcount=2809

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074318&postcount=2812

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074327&postcount=2813

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074513&postcount=2818

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074550&postcount=2824

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074575&postcount=2826

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074783&postcount=2830

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074799&postcount=2834

And so on and on and on...

It appears you have no argument, you understand you have no argument, but you don't want to concede you have no argument, so you keep bringing up old items that were examined months earlier as if they were never addressed.

They were. Your arguments are still toast, no matter how many times you recycle them.

And it's amusing that while you originally claimed Barnum's account was garbled, you're now taking a different approach and pretending it's not: "No media reports or attention-seeking towards conspiracy theorists could have garbled Barnum's personal account."

Hank

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Hank intentionally misses the point to artificially extend the discussion.

Wait so now you're saying the posts missed the point? I thought you didn't understand them because they were- to you- incoherent?
I'm struggling to see how both these positions can be simultaneously true.

Can you clarify, please?

 

[HSienzant]

Too bad literally none of them [Hank's rebuttal posts] can even be considered coherent.

Hank intentionally misses the point to artificially extend the discussion.

Wait so now you're saying the posts missed the point? I thought you didn't understand them because they were- to you- incoherent?
I'm struggling to see how both these positions can be simultaneously true.

Can you clarify, please?

Helpful hint #238 when dealing with Conspiracy Theorists:
Take some time to listen to the crickets chirping.
Always a good way to alleviate stress.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

Hank intentionally misses the point to artificially extend the discussion.

George Barnum's handwritten account should be considered incredible evidence for the early throat wound discovery by the autopsy pathologists.

So what you're saying is that it all went down like this:

1 - They get the President onto the exam table.

2- They note the throat wound and immediately identify it as a bullet wound.

3- Turn the body over and discover the rear bullet wound.

4 - Look at the X-rays, find no bullets inside the body.

5 - Discern that the bullet passed through the body.

6 - Lie about it.

7 - Call Parkland to cover their lie.

8 - Then write their conclusion in the autopsy report anyway.

Okay...

 

[bknight]

So what you're saying is that it all went down like this:

1 - They get the President onto the exam table.

2- They note the throat wound and immediately identify it as a bullet wound.

3- Turn the body over and discover the rear bullet wound.

4 - Look at the X-rays, find no bullets inside the body.

5 - Discern that the bullet passed through the body.

6 - Lie about it.

7 - Call Parkland to cover their lie.

8 - Then write their conclusion in the autopsy report anyway.

Okay...

Ah man you left off altering he body

 

[Axxman300]

Ah man you left off altering he body

Yeah, because that always made sense.

MJ says he spent 5 weeks reading CT books. I spent 5 weeks going through the new JFK documents at the National Archives.

MJ cherry-picks information without acknowledging his sources directly undermine his pet EOP theory completely.

I read as many documents as I can, and come away with the opinion that the FBI and CIA WANTED AND HOPED FOR A CONSPIRACY TO LINK OSWALD TO OUR COLD WAR FOES. The CIA made at least three separate inquiries to their Mexico City sources desperately hoping to link Oswald to Castro. The FBI shook down all of their informants in the Gulf States trying to tie Oswald to someone bigger.

If the autopsy was going to be faked then it would have been to link Oswald to someone, and not to frame him. A second gunman gives the FBI and CIA carte blanche to target everyone on their enemies list in the name of justice.

Both the CIA and FBI went to some real dark places in 1964 while investigating the assassination, and the documents show that after the Warren Commission published their finding there were some in the FBI and CIA who continued to believe Oswald was working with or for someone else. It is quite possible the reason the assassination CT's continued to grow from the mid-60's onward is a direct result of insiders from both agencies running their mouths at parties, or other gatherings where laymen took their CT rants as proof something was afoot in Dallas other than what actually happened.

We saw the same thing after 9-11 with key people in the CIA, and Bush NSC refusing to believe Al Qaeda could have pulled the attacks off alone. That's why they looked to Iraq on 9-12. Smart people can still have problems with the facts when they conflict with their world view.

 

[MicahJava]

We saw the same thing after 9-11 with key people in the CIA, and Bush NSC refusing to believe Al Qaeda could have pulled the attacks off alone. That's why they looked to Iraq on 9-12. Smart people can still have problems with the facts when they conflict with their world view.

So gullible. Iraq was a fake war staged so the military industrial complex could make money. The fact that the Iraq war happened is worse than if 9/11 was an inside job. Everything about Saddam having WMDs and connections to Al Qaeda was a lie, we should've left Saddam alone, every U.S. Soldier who died in Iraq died for nothing, and everybody knows it.

 

[MicahJava]

The new Oswald mock trial's ethics panel features a 3D animation traced over the Zapruder Film which can be considered a rebuttal to Dale Myers. Here's a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH_r1uDCa88&t=18m1s

 

[MicahJava]

So what you're saying is that it all went down like this:

1 - They get the President onto the exam table.

2- They note the throat wound and immediately identify it as a bullet wound.

3- Turn the body over and discover the rear bullet wound.

4 - Look at the X-rays, find no bullets inside the body.

5 - Discern that the bullet passed through the body.

6 - Lie about it.

7 - Call Parkland to cover their lie.

8 - Then write their conclusion in the autopsy report anyway.

Okay...

Sounds like you haven't been reading very closely. Just by reading my posts and the information I linked, you should have a better grasp on the JFK autopsy.

 

[MicahJava]

MicahJava, I am going to have to assume, with disappointment if not surprise, that your continued silence here is an admission that you did, in fact, fully understand the posts, and that your blithe dismissal of them as 'incoherent' was indeed a cheap ploy to avoid actually addressing them.

You can change all this in a jiffy, if you wish, by simply answering my question.

Your continued silence, on the other hand, will stand as an admission of your guilt.

Anybody who has a basic grasp of the words on this thread doesn't care about your comments. If you have a question, ask away.

 

[BStrong]

Sounds like you haven't been reading very closely. Just by reading my posts and the information I linked, you should have a better grasp on the JFK autopsy.

The problem isn't in other posters reading of your posts, it's in your posts.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Over to you, MicahJava. Do you genuinely not understand the posts, or is it as HSienzant says, that this is just a cheap debating tactic allowing you to wriggle out of having to answer any of them?

MicahJava, I am going to have to assume, with disappointment if not surprise, that your continued silence here is an admission that you did, in fact, fully understand the posts, and that your blithe dismissal of them as 'incoherent' was indeed a cheap ploy to avoid actually addressing them.

You can change all this in a jiffy, if you wish, by simply answering my question.

Your continued silence, on the other hand, will stand as an admission of your guilt.

Wait so now you're saying the posts missed the point? I thought you didn't understand them because they were- to you- incoherent?
I'm struggling to see how both these positions can be simultaneously true.

Can you clarify, please?

Anybody who has a basic grasp of the words on this thread doesn't care about your comments. If you have a question, ask away.

Poor, even by your standards.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt- and I was about the only one here prepared to do that- and all you did was expose your dishonest debating tactics once again.

How this qualifies you as a truthseeker is a mystery.

It appears, then, that you did understand those posts all along, and were just trying to avoid answering them by making various false aspertions about them. Someone here has a sig abut credibility: I suggest you read it.

 

[HSienzant]

The new Oswald mock trial's ethics panel features a 3D animation traced over the Zapruder Film which can be considered a rebuttal to Dale Myers. Here's a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH_r1uDCa88&t=18m1s

Problem is his built-in bias is showing.

At the 3:36 mark, the bullet points in the video say there was a fourth bullet, based on what he claims were conclusions reached by the FBI, Secret Service, and CIA that three bullets landed in the limousine. He argues the Tague shot was that evidence of a fourth bullet, but apparently never considers whether it could have been the lead core of the head shot that struck Tague.

He also misdates the Warren Commission determination of the single-bullet concept vs. the determination of when Tague was wounded (claiming Tague's wounding caused the WC to develop the single-bullet concept). The single-bullet concept came before Tague testified and came about because of a close study of the Zapruder film and the recreation when compared to the eyewitness testimony, especially that of John Connally. It had nothing to do with Tague.

The Testimony of John Connally was taken on April 21st, 1964.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0055a.htm

The FBI / Secret Service reenactment was done May 24th, 1964.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/18286-1964-fbi-re-enactment-color-credit-6th-floor-museum/

Tague's testimony was taken on July 23rd, 1964.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0280b.htm

So his claim in those bullet points that the discovery of the Tague wound led the Commission to decide on a single-bullet concept is false. The Tague wound wasn't the genesis, it was the recreation and the perceived timing of the shots combined with the testimony of the Governor.

Garbage in, Garbage out.

The Wikipedia page on the Single Bullet Theory has much more detail and exposes the claim in the cited video as a falsehood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory

Note particularly the dates in these two paragraphs:
On April 14 and 21, two conferences were held at the Commission to determine when, exactly, the president and governor were struck. Assistant counsel Melvin Eisenberg wrote in a memorandum dated April 22 on the first conference that the consensus of those attending was, among other issues, that Kennedy was struck by frames 225–6 and that “the velocity of the first bullet [which struck Kennedy] would have been little diminished by its passage through the President. Therefore, if Governor Connally was in the path of the bullet it would have struck him and caused the wounds he sustained in his chest cavity... Strong indications for that this occurred are provided by the facts that... if the first bullet did not strike Governor Connally, it should have ripped up the car but it apparently did not.” However, the memorandum stated, given the relatively undamaged condition of the bullet presumed to have done this, CE 399, the consensus was a separate bullet probably struck his wrist and thigh. While not specifying a precise frame for when it was thought Connally was struck by the same bullet which struck Kennedy, the consensus was “by Z235” as afterwards his body position would not have allowed his back to be struck the way it was.

By the end of April 1964, the Commission had its working theory, the single-bullet theory, to account for the apparent timing discrepancies found in the Zapruder film and the lack of any damage to the limousine from a high-velocity bullet exiting the president's throat. (Impact damage was observed in the limousine, but was indicative of lower-velocity bullets or bullet fragments. For example, a nick on the limousine’s chrome was not from a high-velocity bullet as such a bullet would have pierced the chrome, not merely dented it.)

Tague didn't testify until July. His claims about the genesis of the single bullet concept are false.

I removed the footnoting present in the original.

Hank